BLOG PODCAST ARCHIVES LINKS

 

 

 

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

American Conservative Web Ring
Members List
Previous - Next
Random - Join
Previous 5 - Next 5

Site Meter

 

 

 

Powered by Blogger

 

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Bush Speaks about Immigration, I Speak about Bush

Last night was Bush's big immigration speech. I didn't watch it because I'm extremely busy (okay, I was watching 24), but I did read the transcript, and in this post I'll give you most of Bush's speech, and between speech segments I'll give you my own commentary on it.

The first thing that I noticed is how Bush is trying to play both sides on this issue. A lot of what you'll see is "illegal immigration is bad, but illegals aren't bad people." More on that as I go through the speech though.

"The issue of immigration stirs intense emotions and in recent weeks, Americans have seen those emotions on display. On the streets of major cities, crowds have rallied in support of those in our country illegally. At our southern border, others have organized to stop illegal immigrants from coming in. Across the country, Americans are trying to reconcile these contrasting images."

So this is how it starts out. He shows both sides, which is fine, but then he pretends both sides hold ground, and Americans are evenly split on the issue. It's politics, surely, but still a bad move. I see he's trying to play both sides to get votes for the Republicans and improve his polls. But here's the thing, most illegals are voting Democrat, plus most of his base won't vote Republican if they won't secure the border! Anyways, lets continue and see more of this two-faced speech. In fact, I'll color the text accordingly to help you out. Green will be good parts, and red will be bad, making it easier for pro-Bush bloggers to take the speech out of context.

"We must begin by recognizing the problems with our immigration system. For decades, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders. As a result, many who want to work in our economy have been able to sneak across our border and millions have stayed.
Once here, illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. Many use forged documents to get jobs, and that makes it difficult for employers to verify that the workers they hire are legal. Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities
. These are real problems, yet we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law."

Another example of Bush having a good moment, then balancing it with a bad one. Because it's just how politicians work now. The Republican party comes before the country, and your defense comes before the countries defense. Luckily the Republicans will get what they had coming when all of the illegals with phoney ID's vote Democrat. It'll be even bigger if we let illegals become legalized with Bush's guest worker policy, and it grows into a guest voter policy. You'll see Bush, you're making a big mistake.

This next quote will make your head spin.

"We are a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We are also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals. America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system that is secure, orderly and fair. So I support comprehensive immigration reform that will accomplish five clear objectives."

Yikes. Well, I'll start from the top. He's right how we're a nation of laws, but the next sentence makes me forget he ever said anything good. It even negates everything good he's done in all of his 6 years in office. He's now regurgitating the lies by illegal immigrants themselves. Good job Bush. Lets get this straight right now. As far as I'm concerned, every country is a nation of immigrants except for Africa, where the human race begun. Africans immigrated to Europe and Asia, and guess what else? The Spanish immigrated to Mexico, and even the "native" Americans weren't native; they crossed over from Eastern Asia when it touched North America! So don't you give me this nation of immigrants bullcrap again, because by the definition you and the illegals gave, so is Mexico, and yes, even the Indians were immigrants. Lets continue through the rest of the paragraph now. Next he claims his goals aren't "condradictory", and we can "be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time" Does any of this make you think of Clinton? Listen to how he is manipulating words and purposefully being vague. We can be lawful and welcoming, neither lawful, or welcoming can be defined in this quote. Lawful means enforcing the laws, which means closing the door to illegal immigration. Welcoming, is giving them a chance to cut in line, get a welcome basket, and a pat on the back by politicians and businesses. How can it be both ways? You either enforce the laws or you don't Bush, don't tell me you can do both. You can kinda enforce the laws, and kinda be nice, You can even build a wall on half the border and a tunnel on the other; but you can't be lawful and welcoming, not when it comes to illegal immigration. He continues by saying we can be "secure, orderly, and fair". Again, no specifics. He didn't say "we're going to protect the border, but have first class busses with air conditioning to take them back Mexico" Again, he was vague so he could play both sides more easily. What does he mean by fair, does anyone know? Fair as in, I get half, you get half? How can you be specific there? There's no way you can play both sides on this issue and be specific! Lets continue.

"First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security. Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers and terrorists."

You're right Bush, the border should be shut to illegal immigrants, too bad it's not something you're ever planning on doing though. Nothing is actually wrong with what he said here, only that I highly doubt he'll ever actually do any of this.

"I was the governor of a state that has a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. So I know how difficult it is to enforce the border, and how important it is. Since I became president, we have increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. The men and women of our Border Patrol are doing a fine job in difficult circumstances, and over the past five years, we have apprehended and sent home about 6 million people entering America illegally."

And after being sent home they come right back. This paragraph sounds great, but that doesn't mean much. From what I've seen, everything he's done hasn't been working. I'm sick of Bush and his supporters speaking so highly about the national guard thing, because as I've told you, it only sounds good on the surface. You know what these guardsmen are doing? They're helping to secure this "virtual wall" by watching cameras and doing the majority of their work in offices. They won't even have weapons! Sorry, but I won't be happy until Bush builds a wall spanning the entire border, north and south. Walls work. Not guest worker programs, not virtual walls and weaponless national guardsmen. If you want support Bush, then make a wall.

"Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we will have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency."

This one almost got a red coloring, mainly because it sounds good, but really it's not. We're wasting tons of money to send soldiers to the border without allowing them to do their job. They can't shoot intruders or even have guns. It's all about this virtual border watched over by these soldiers. Listen, I have no problem with the national guard helping out at the border, but it just plain won't help until there is some kind of a wall there first. It seems like Bush has the order backwards. Logically it should go, wall, soldiers, guest worker program. He's got it reversed.

"At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We will employ motion sensors infrared cameras and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings. America has the best technology in the world and we will ensure that the Border Patrol has the technology they need to do their job and secure our border"

Okay, this is more with the virtual border thing. Sorry, I'm still not convinced. I don't care how many lasers and cameras you have, people will always get through without a wall. Again, lets get our priorities in order. Okay, the speech gets really nasty again next.

"One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems analyzing intelligence installing fences and vehicle barriers building patrol roads and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities that duty will be done by the Border Patrol. This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online. It is important for Americans to know that we have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, respond to natural disasters, and help secure our border."

As I said, the national guard is a waste. They're watching cameras and alerting the border patrol, who are the people we really need more of. We don't need this whimpy plan. Stop this virtual wall crap. If we're going to put the national guard on the border, I do not want them doing the jobs of security guards. They should be out there with tanks and helicopters scoping the damn border, not cameras! Does no one else see this? Oh well, lets get to the next part where he plays both sides.

"The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime, and to reduce illegal immigration."

It's a shame. I think we should have more troops on the border than Iraq. Sorry Iraq, but when we're in a national security crisis, we come first. I hate to be unreasonable or impatient, but can't this transfer to the Iraqi's happen a little bit faster? Before there are 50 million illegals here? On to the next sentence that pisses me off. Mexico is a friend? Maybe I'm not up with the times, but I never thought "friend" meant someone who trespasses on your land and took your jobs and services. It just gets worse and worse, huh? Onward.

"The steps I have outlined will improve our ability to catch people entering our country illegally."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Man he's funny.

Well it's 10:00 at night and I'm only half way through this depressing speech which by the way gets worse and worse. I don't want to bore you so I'll give you short quotes from the rest of it and finish it off, because I don't want my articles to be too long.

"Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program."

Bull. To secure our border, we need a wall. it's that fricken simple.

"Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire."

Yes. I have no objections here.

This next one may be the funniest of all.

"Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration."

So if amnesty is all of a sudden bad, then why do you support it? And don't tell me you don't, push aside the word manipulation and doublespeak, and it all boils down to amnesty. Automatic path to citizenship, or kinda hard path to citizenship, they're both amnesty.

The next four or five paragraphs are just more "reasons" for the guest worker policy and it's more of the same. So there it is, where Bush stands and where I stand. And if you're a Conservative calling me a Liberal right now, just wait a minute. Bush is no longer a true Conservative like I am. He's not a fiscal Conservative, he's not a small government Conservative, he can't even be Conservative on illegal immigration! Me, I'm the real deal. I'm not a Republican and I'm not a Bush-bot. I open my own eyes and make up my own mind based on a true Conservative ideology. I dislike Bush from a Conservative standpoint, not a Liberal one. But after this speech, who the hell does like Bush anymore? Answer, the people who didn't hear the speech.

21 Comments:

  • At 17/5/06 12:02 AM, Blogger Gayle said…

    Cody, you've done a lot of work on this post and I understand the anger. I was absolutely furious last night after listening to his speech.

    My husband (Retired Warrant 3, remember) is the one who pointed out one fact I cannot argue with: Because of the Democrats, anything stronger than this Bush will not be able to get through Congress. Unless we have another national disaster, this is - because of the reality of politics - all he will be able to get passed. It truly sucks (a word I hate and seldom use) but it applies here. I can't come up with one that describes it half as well. (Well, I can, but really don't want to write those words down!)

     
  • At 17/5/06 3:03 PM, Blogger beeran3 said…

    Cody I see how you can rag on bush about his speech and how he did bad but I think you might do the same thing If you were put into that position having to try and please millons of people in this country. you do have some very good points but saying he is trying to win over both sides is true and i think you would try to also, the thing is if he says one thing wrong the democrats will be right on it, so whats he to say???? He can't please everyone

     
  • At 17/5/06 4:25 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Cody I see how you can rag on bush about his speech and how he did bad but I think you might do the same thing If you were put into that position having to try and please millons of people in this country.

    Being president is not about pleasing people beeran3, it's about doing what's best for the US.

    Interesting and inovative post Cody. I like the colored text. That was very inovative and convienant. Also the transcript is convienent for me because I didn't get to hear the speech.

     
  • At 17/5/06 4:27 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I must point out though that he tanks and helicopters you suggested are a lttle over the top. That'd cost tax money. A LOT of tax money. And it'd be uneccisary to boot. I think that half the problem is that the border guards aren't spaced right or allowed to do their job.

     
  • At 17/5/06 7:11 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Gayle said...
    "My husband (Retired Warrant 3, remember) is the one who pointed out one fact I cannot argue with: Because of the Democrats, anything stronger than this Bush will not be able to get through Congress. Unless we have another national disaster, this is - because of the reality of politics - all he will be able to get passed. It truly sucks (a word I hate and seldom use) but it applies here. I can't come up with one that describes it half as well. (Well, I can, but really don't want to write those words down!)"

    I see your point Gayle. I would just hope at some point they would crack. If I were president I would keep bringing up my tough policies over and over, even if it was blocked each time until the illegal problem got to huge they finally cracked and the American public finally realizes what morons they are. But my God, you'd think we could at least all agree on a wall!

    beeran3 said...
    "Cody I see how you can rag on bush about his speech and how he did bad but I think you might do the same thing If you were put into that position having to try and please millons of people in this country. you do have some very good points but saying he is trying to win over both sides is true and i think you would try to also, the thing is if he says one thing wrong the democrats will be right on it, so whats he to say???? He can't please everyone"

    I truly think a tougher policy will win over more support by Americans, by Republicans and Democrats. With this middle of the road security Bush is losing his own base, plus Democrats, who should be agreeing with him on this issue. I know politics is a tough game, and I'm not saying Bush is having it easy right now, but the best move for this whole thing is to listen to his base and to people like me (and by the way, I used to like Bush, he's just strayed to far from Conservatism for me). As I've said before, the politician who wants a full wall on both borders gets my vote in '08. Except for Hillary, because I know she'd be BS'ing.

    Darksaturos said...
    "Interesting and inovative post Cody. I like the colored text. That was very inovative and convienant. Also the transcript is convienent for me because I didn't get to hear the speech."

    I thought it was a good way to show how for every good thing he said, he evened it out with something bad. Oh, and I only went through half of the speech so if you want the whole thing you'll have to look elsewhere. Try world net daily. It may still be on there, on page 2 at the least.

    "I must point out though that he tanks and helicopters you suggested are a lttle over the top. That'd cost tax money. A LOT of tax money. And it'd be uneccisary to boot. I think that half the problem is that the border guards aren't spaced right or allowed to do their job."

    Alright, Alright. Tanks OR Helicopters.

     
  • At 18/5/06 8:03 PM, Blogger beeran3 said…

    Being president is not about pleasing people beeran3, it's about doing what's best for the US.

    Well you got to keep some kind of base you don't want everyone against you.Why do you think their going throught this whole immigration thing???? TO PLEASE PEOPLE everytime you check out the news they are raging on him he'll end up like another JFK and i don't know if anyone could do whats best for the US because US people always find something to critisize on

    As I've said before, the politician who wants a full wall on both borders gets my vote in '08. Except for Hillary, because I know she'd be BS'ing.

    HAHA GOOD POINT o jesus if she gets in office you might as well change the country name to HELL I'll be moving to canada or mexico

     
  • At 18/5/06 10:58 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    "Sorry Iraq, but when we're in a national security crisis, we come first. I hate to be unreasonable or impatient, but can't this transfer to the Iraqi's happen a little bit faster? Before there are 50 million illegals here? On to the next sentence that pisses me off. Mexico is a friend? Maybe I'm not up with the times, but I never thought "friend" meant someone who trespasses on your land and took your jobs and services."

    I don't understand why this is a "national security" problem, as we aren't facing terrorists or guerrilla warfare here. Certainly people who work here illegally are to blame, but what about the American employers who LET THEM? That seems like a bigger problem to me than immigrants desperate to be Americans...Americans who can't even protect the laws of their own country. If harsher penalties were placed on employers, immigrants would lose jobs and then they would have no reason to be here. Also, not all illegal immigrants are Mexican. Building a wall on the border will be a giant waste of money and won't offer "protection" from immigrants from any other country. Shouldn't we be a little bit more concerned about our airlines and our WAR than about ridding our country of illegal immigrants?

     
  • At 19/5/06 6:12 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Shouldn't we be a little bit more concerned about our airlines and our WAR than about ridding our country of illegal immigrants?"

    Maybe when the war just started, but at this point, I don't see why troop reduction isn't possible at the rate of success. At this point, yeah, I think this country is a little bit more important. We've got millions of these illegals protesting for legality and the right to vote, yet at the same time, they don't fully want to be part of the system. They don't want our culture, language, or laws. If we don't protect those things from illegals, our country will slowly die. We need more soldiers patrolling the border, and we also need more resources to capture employers of illegal immigrants, and we also need to cut a little Iraq budget for a border fence budget.

     
  • At 19/5/06 3:23 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Well you got to keep some kind of base you don't want everyone against you

    Not after your second election! It SHOULD be about supporting the country, not about pleasing people.

    I don't understand why this is a "national security" problem, as we aren't facing terrorists or guerrilla warfare here.

    Well actually there ARE several Mexican gangs that like to kill people for no real reason. And what about drugs? A lot of them are brought from illegal immigrants entering the country from Sotuh America.

    Certainly people who work here illegally are to blame, but what about the American employers who LET THEM?

    I agree completly. Both parties (illegals and employers) should be punished. I wouldn't argue with you on that.

    If harsher penalties were placed on employers, immigrants would lose jobs and then they would have no reason to be here.

    Exactly. That's what we need. Unfourtuanatly no one wants to do that.

    Also, not all illegal immigrants are Mexican.

    Be realistic. Not all are, but most are. And you know it. Don't sacrifice the facts because it might sound discriminatory.

    Shouldn't we be a little bit more concerned about our airlines and our WAR than about ridding our country of illegal immigrants?

    Funny, liberals always want to reduce troops and pull out of Iraq... at least until an issue comes up that makes it beneficial to liberals' arguements that they stay there. You're not consistant on that one.

     
  • At 19/5/06 9:46 PM, Blogger J said…

    I also found the transcript handy, since I had better things to do than listen to Bush inevitably flip-flop all over the issue like a fish out of water. Now I have all of Bush's half-baked attempts to please everybody in a handy color-coded format! Thanks, Cody!

     
  • At 20/5/06 9:06 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Aren't you all being a little harsh though? Okay so he was wrong on some things. I still think he's a good president. Not like you Cody to follow the crowd on things. I understand the issue with the speech but hey, he's done a lot of good and I still think he's a good president. I'm not gonna hate him neccesarily I'm just going to think that's this is mistake 5 or 6. That's not neccesarily a bad count for a president.

     
  • At 20/5/06 6:22 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    I am not trying to pose a "liberal argument"--you need to start seeing people as individuals rather than labeling all of their opinions, because I'm sure there are some things you say that conflict with your party's platform or decisions. I am expressing an opinion about something which there is little agreement on anyway, so I can't very likely be taking sides with some politician.

    What is contradictory about this is what Cody says about reducing troops because of the success rate...it wasn't going to happen before, so why would it happen now? If we aren't going to pull out than we should be there until the mess is cleaned up and it clearly isn't...the current explanation for being there has yet to be accomplished so I'm unsure about where this idea of success is coming from.

    Also, I was not trying to avoid sounding discriminatory, I was stating exactly what it was I said, that they aren't all from Mexico. It had nothing to do with stereotypes.

     
  • At 21/5/06 8:57 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I am not trying to pose a "liberal argument"--you need to start seeing people as individuals rather than labeling all of their opinions, because I'm sure there are some things you say that conflict with your party's platform or decisions.

    But you ARE a liberal! And I'm a conservative! Just because we disagree with some of our parties' postions doesn't change the fact that we are politically left or right. What would you like me to refer to your arguement as?

    What is contradictory about this is what Cody says about reducing troops because of the success rate...it wasn't going to happen before, so why would it happen now? If we aren't going to pull out than we should be there until the mess is cleaned up and it clearly isn't...the current explanation for being there has yet to be accomplished so I'm unsure about where this idea of success is coming from.

    Well we could argue about Iraq War successes (or in your case lack thereof) all day, but that'd get really off subject. I think that if you look at history objectivally you'll see that Iraq is/was extremally succesful, but that's a whole other arguement. However I would point out that that whole arguement you've just made is based on the OPINION that Iraq hasn't been succesful which isn't really valid.

    Also, I was not trying to avoid sounding discriminatory, I was stating exactly what it was I said, that they aren't all from Mexico. It had nothing to do with stereotypes.

    Okay that makes sense, but look my point still stands. We need to concentrate on Mexico because that's where MOST of them are coming from. If it was Canada we'd focus there.

     
  • At 21/5/06 12:16 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    darksaturos said...
    "Aren't you all being a little harsh though?"

    I don't think so. When it really comes down to it, the only thing I like about him is his tough stance on the war on terror. I do believe he's keeping us safe from terrorists. But fiscally, he's not doing great. Sure the economy is good, but tax cuts with a big budget only means the economy is going to plunge down the road. I'd give Bush a 4/10 on the economy. So yeah, I think he's been a great war time president, but on every other issue apart from the war he hasn't really done that great. But that's just my opinion of course.

    J said...
    "I also found the transcript handy, since I had better things to do than listen to Bush inevitably flip-flop all over the issue like a fish out of water. Now I have all of Bush's half-baked attempts to please everybody in a handy color-coded format! Thanks, Cody!"

    Your welcome.

     
  • At 23/5/06 1:24 PM, Blogger Gayle said…

    I'm tired... been working out in the hot Texas sun, so this will be short.

    This border problem shall be solved...
    just like gas, this too shall pass.

    Write another post, Cody. I'm really getting bummed out on the border issue right now. Pleaaaassssssse? :)

     
  • At 24/5/06 8:25 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Write another post, Cody. I'm really getting bummed out on the border issue right now. Pleaaaassssssse? :)"

    Sure thing, I'll write one tonight. If you, or anyone else for that matter has a topic suggestion, tell me any time.

     
  • At 25/5/06 5:53 PM, Blogger Rebekah said…

    I'm very glad Bush is finally doing something, but I agree it's frustrating how he tries to play both sides. This is one time - and Bush should know - that the LAST thing needed is transparent politics.

     
  • At 25/5/06 11:01 PM, Blogger Philosopher said…

    The problem is the republicans cant agree on anything.

     
  • At 26/5/06 8:42 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "The problem is the republicans cant agree on anything."

    Well, the problem is that the RINO's are no longer an endangered species. They've recently been popping out of bushes and attacking Conservatives. But then again, what are the true Republicans doing either? The GOP is really starting to frustrate me. There's only a few Republicans I support at this point. That's pretty sad.

     
  • At 26/5/06 10:04 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    The problem is the republicans cant agree on anything.

    Not only that (and the RINOs) but the Republicans are getting too powerful and going too far to either the right (which gets them votes) or left (which gets them control over people). Unfourtuanatly it may take a slap in the face in 08 or 12 to get them to learn some humility.

     
  • At 26/5/06 7:51 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Robby said...
    "Unfourtuanatly it may take a slap in the face in 08 or 12 to get them to learn some humility."

    oh, God. 10 years of Liberal dominance is what it will take to fix the GOP? I think I'll need to build a bomb shelter in my basement just in case.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home